No. |
Issue |
Action |
Status |
1. |
NNI requirements documents being developed in the IETF ccamp and
ipo working groups in parallel with the ITU-T work on G.807/Y.1302,
G.8080, and many other drafts. |
Formal communications, Cross-pollination by company
representatives |
Ongoing collaboration by company representatives, IETF Design
Team working to align routing requirements |
2. |
Parallel work by ITU-T on permanent virtual circuit based on NNI
with work at IETF work on both switch service based on optical UNI
and permanent virtual connections based on optical NNI |
|
Ongoing collaboration by company representatives |
3. |
10GbE WAN PHY may not interoperate with interfaces developed
using STM-64 specifications |
Adaptation in draft revision of G.707 |
CLOSED |
4. |
IEEE 802.3 Ethernet in the First Mile Study Group addressing work
that should utilise Q.2/15 work on physical layer portions of
Passive Optical Networks |
Communication Statement sent to IEEE 802.3, Q.2/15 selected
liaison to help coordinate work |
Under study in Q.2 & 4/15 |
5 |
Metropolitan optical networks being developed independent of
established standard interfaces, assuming they are stand-alone
networks |
Metro optical networks description included in OTNT SWP |
CLOSED |
6 |
IaDI standardization has different concepts among the different
questions. What is necessary? Is the difference in opinion simply
based on different interpretations of the IaDI definition? |
Draft G.696.1 (G.IaDI) under development in Q.16/15 |
CLOSED |
7 |
OTN Routing and how to deal with physical impairments on logical
routing decisions |
No recent proposals, possible non-issue |
Inactive |
8 |
Optical Supervisory Channel (OSC) has slightly different
definitions and views of standardization among the different
questions. What is necessary? |
Proposals considered by Q.12/15 and Q.16/15 |
Inactive |
9 |
Ethernet (GbE, 10GbE) is supported as a client of the OTN, but is
additional standardization required specific to Ethernet? |
Liaisons to and from the MEF, continuing work by Q.9, 11, &
12/15 on Transport of Ethernet Frames |
CLOSED |
10 |
OTN and ASON Framework Recommendations have been proposed in
discussions. G.871 is valid (but out of date) as a framework for OTN.
The new Optical Transport Networks & Technology
Standardization/Work Plan will provide frequently updated
information. Are framework recommendations necessary? |
Options considered in Q.19/15 |
Inactive |
11 |
Optical transport network terminology is inconsistent across the
industry and in some cases even across the ITU-T. What about using
G.871 as the holder for normative definitions for OTN? |
SDH, OTN, and ASON vocabulary Recommendations developed for
consent |
CLOSED |
12 |
Characterisation of optical monitoring parameters, which would be
required for all-optical networking, remain undefined. Which
parameters should be used at an all-optical measurement point, how
should they be measured, and how should they be used? |
Draft G.697(G.optmon) prepared by Q.16/15 (for consent),
identifies possible measurements |
Network requirements in scope of other Questions |
13 |
Multiple ITU-T SG15 questions have discussed the standardization
of OTN GCC contents. Is coordination between the questions required? |
NO, each group standardize the application within its scope |
CLOSED |
14 |
Optical control plane protocols to support ASON are currently
being discussed, revised, or defined in several organizations,
including ITU-T SG15, the IETF, the OIF, and the ATM Forum. |
Formal communications, Cross-pollination by company
representatives and liaisons |
Ongoing collaboration by representatives and liaisons, IETF
Design Team working to align routing requirements |
15 |
GFP being considered for multiple applications not fully
addressed by the current standardized version. Enhancements for
different applications either need to be included in G.7041 or they
will likely be captured in other application specific documents,
resulting in multiple "versions" of GFP. |
Q.2/15 used unique encapsulation for PON applications |
CLOSED |